For the past several weeks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been working in secret with a small number of Republican lawmakers, aides, and lobbyists to craft their own Obamacare repeal bill. The idea, presumably, was to avoid the kind of spectacle that nearly derailed the House’s repeal effort earlier this year, when Speaker Paul Ryan was forced to pull a vote. Democrats have protested the closed-door negotiations, which will leave only little time for public debate before a final vote next week. But now, as McConnell prepares to unveil the result of the Senate leadership’s clandestine meetings, he faces another risk: that his fellow Republicans, most of whom were excluded from the drafting process, will hate the bill, too.

With Republicans facing a slim majority of 52 to 48 in the Senate, McConnell can only lose two Republican votes. Getting the caucus to coalesce around an Obamacare repeal bill was always going to be an uphill climb, given the divisions between the upper chamber’s moderates and conservatives. But as details of the legislation were released Thursday morning, a number of Republican senators have voiced concerns that suggest McConnell’s cloak-and-dagger strategy could backfire.

The draft text of the Senate bill seems to be about as “mean” and “cold-hearted” as President Donald Trump warned it might be. Much like the House health-care bill, the Senate version will get rid of the Affordable Care Act taxes and alter the Obamacare subsidies intended to help low-income Americans afford coverage, making them less generous. The income cut-off to receive the subsidies will be lower than under the Affordable Care Act and the House bill—at 350 percent of the federal poverty line for individuals not eligible for Medicaid—meaning a smaller population would be eligible. Similarly, the legislation has a slower rollback of the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, spanning four years, but the cuts to the program will ultimately be steeper. The bill also includes provisions that allow states to implement work requirements to receive Medicaid benefits.

In the days before the draft was released, moderate Republicans expressed concerns that the Senate bill would be just as hard on low-income individuals as the House version, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would result in 23 million fewer Americans having insurance coverage by 2026 than under Obamacare. “I don't look favorably on it, that's for sure,” Senator Shelley Moore Capito of Virginia said of the purported Medicaid cuts. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio echoed the sentiment, saying he was “not for it,” Axios reports. Senator Susan Collins of Maine expressed similar skepticism about the impact of the bill on society’s most vulnerable. “The president has argued for a more generous bill,” she said Wednesday. “We’ll have to see what comes out tomorrow, but I’m wondering if those who are drafting the bill are listening to what the president said about the need for the bill to be more generous.”

While moderates are likely to applaud the delayed cuts to the Medicaid program, some are likely to raise issue with the fact that the Senate bill allows states to obtain waivers to opt-out of the "essential health benefits” provision under the A.C.A.—as did the House bill. One key difference, however, is that the Senate bill requires states to maintain the “community rating” provision, which bars insurers from charging individuals of the same age and in the same area different premiums. This might assuage some senators' concerns that the bill won't protect individuals with pre-existing conditions.

But while moderates may worry that the bill is too draconian, conservatives have already suggested that the proposed cuts don’t go far enough. “If our bill comes in with greater subsidies than Obamacare, I think it’s going to be harder for conservatives to support,” Senator Paul Randtold Politico. “That, to me, is really a nonstarter.”

Other Republican lawmakers had voiced their displeasure with McConnell’s decision to draft the bill in secret, and have suggested that they may vote against it if they don’t feel they’ve been given enough time to read it and debate. “I would find it hard to believe I will have enough time,” Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said. “I’ve made leadership well aware of the fact that I need information to make a final decision, and if I don’t have the information to justify a yes vote, I won’t be voting yes.” John McCain also voiced his objections. “The whole process is not satisfactory,” the Arizona senator said. “I feel terrible about it.” Whether that will stop either from actually voting their conscience, when push comes to shove, remains to be seen.